Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT"— Presentation transcript:

1 PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT
WEAO Student Design Competition Ryerson University Design Team: Nancy Afonso Ruston Bedasie Kirill Cheiko Andrew Iammatteo

2 Introduction Regional Municipality of Durham has identified a need to expand the Port Darlington WPCP in two phases Port Darlington WPCP – services the Bowmanville Urban Area Port Darlington WPCP Objectives: Develop preliminary design and layout for Phase I expansion Conceptually design the Phase II expansion Adhere to design philosophy and limit usage of chemicals Achieve innovation based on field proven projects, with environmental sustainability and cost awareness always in mind. (Courtesy of Google Maps)

3 Outline Design Basis and Challenges
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Design Basis and Challenges Process Selection and Facility Design: Headworks Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment Disinfection Solids Handling Additional Considerations Process Control Phase I Economic Analysis Recommendations and Closing Remarks

4 Design Basis and Challenges
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Design Basis and Challenges

5 Annual Avg. Concentration (mg/L)
Plant Loading DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Hydraulic Loading: ADF (m3/d) PDF (m3/d) Added Capacity Total Plant Capacity Current Plant - 13,638 34,095 Phase I 27,276 45,005 90,010 Phase II 13,201 40,477 43,563 133,574 Pollutant Loading: Pollutant Annual Avg. Concentration (mg/L) BOD5 160 TSS 180 Total Phosphorus 7 Ammonia + Ammonium 36 TKN 54

6 Estimated Phase I & Phase II Estimated Existing + Phase I
Effluent Criteria DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS D.O = Design Objective C.L = Compliance Limit Existing Estimated Phase I & Phase II Estimated Existing + Phase I D.O C.L BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 10 TSS (mg/L) Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 0.3 0.65 Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Summer 14 N/A 12 Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter 24 E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) 0.5 0.2 0.25

7 Design Challenges An alternative method of disinfection Nitrification
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS An alternative method of disinfection Nitrification Technologies selected must integrate into the existing plant Al2(SO4)3 for P removal must be reconsidered Phase I design and layout must take into account space limitations for Phase II

8 Process Selection and Facility Design
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Process Selection and Facility Design

9 PFD – Phase I Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment Disinfection
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment Disinfection Preliminary Treatment Phase I Sludge Thickening Existing Sludge Stabilization

10 Plant Layout (Courtesy of Google Maps) DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS (Courtesy of Google Maps)

11 Phase I Expansion DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

12 Phase I Expansion Headworks
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Headworks

13 Phase I Expansion Primary Clarifiers
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Primary Clarifiers

14 Phase I Expansion BNR Bioreactors
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS BNR Bioreactors

15 Phase I Expansion Secondary Clarifiers
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Secondary Clarifiers

16 Phase I Expansion UV Facility
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS UV Facility

17 Phase I Expansion Fermenter
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Fermenter

18 Gravity Belt Thickener
Phase I Expansion DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Gravity Belt Thickener

19 Conduit from Headworks
Hydraulic Profile DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Conduit from Headworks Outfall Pipe L.L.EL m Available head = 3.0 m L.L.EL m

20 Headworks Headworks DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Headworks

21 Headworks Installation of two 94 kW raw sewage pumps
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Installation of two 94 kW raw sewage pumps Commissioning of third headworks channel Commissioning of aerated grit tank

22 Primary Treatment Primary Clarifiers
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Primary Clarifiers

23 Primary Treatment Four (4) rectangular clarifier installation
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Four (4) rectangular clarifier installation Total Volume: 1960m3 BOD Removal: 30% TSS Removal: 55% HRT: ADF Chain & flight scum/sludge collection

24 Secondary Treatment BNR Bioreactors
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS BNR Bioreactors

25 Activated Sludge with incorporated biological nutrient removal (BNR)
Process Selection DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Activated Sludge with incorporated biological nutrient removal (BNR) Reduced chemical dependency Reliable effluent quality Low sludge production Sludge has higher levels of bioavailable nutrients Reduced aeration requirements Improved sludge settleability Environmentally sustainable

26 Process Selection: WESTBANK
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS VFAs Influent BNR Bioreactor Secondary Clarifier Secondary Effluent PREANOXIC ANAEROBIC ANOXIC AEROBIC NMLR RAS WAS

27 Equipment Design 20% 40% 40% = Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 20% 40% 40% = Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic

28 Equipment Design Mechanical Mixers Fine Bubble Diffusers
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Mechanical Mixers Fine Bubble Diffusers = Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic

29 Equipment Design Total Bioreactor Volume: 1,782m3 SRT: 12 days
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 4.8% 8% 7.8% 79.4% Total Bioreactor Volume: 1,782m3 SRT: 12 days HRT: ADF Average MLSS: 3,000 mg/L Required VFA concentration: 15 – 25 mg/L Mechanical Mixers Fine Bubble Diffusers = Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic

30 Secondary Treatment Secondary Clarifiers
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Secondary Clarifiers

31 Secondary Clarifiers Based on the solids loading rate
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Based on the solids loading rate “Gould II” type clarifiers Common sludge collector between sets of two clarifiers

32 Disinfection UV Facility
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS UV Facility

33 Process Selection DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Provide additional hydraulic capacity and meet new compliance criteria Selection between chlorination/dechlorination and UV disinfection UV disinfection selected: Effluent toxicity and safety issues with chlorination Costs of two processes are becoming comparable UV capable of the same process reliability, performance track record, and full automatic control capability Minimal space requirements

34 Design Basis DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Open – channel, modular design with horizontal, LP-HI lamps Plant Hydraulics need to be considered Design Objective: 100 E.Coli/100 mL at PDF UV Transmittance of 65% Redundancy to achieve disinfection goal with 1 channel out of service

35 Design Basis DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Open – channel, modular design with horizontal, LP-HI lamps Design Objective: 100 E.Coli/100 mL at PDF UV Transmittance of 65% (Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)

36 UV Facility Design UV Dose of 30 mW.s/cm2 using LP-HI lamps
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS UV Dose of 30 mW.s/cm2 using LP-HI lamps 3 channels constructed: 1 Duty and 1 Redundant (equipped); 1 for Phase II (channel only) ∆ Water Level = 0.881m PDC and Hydraulic Manifold Automated quartz sleeve cleaning system Variable output electronic ballasts Automatic Level Controller UV Banks 48 lamps/bank (Courtesy of Trojan Technologies Inc.)

37 Solids Handling Fermenter
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Fermenter

38 Bio-P removal requires VFAs as a source of energy
Fermenter DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Bio-P removal requires VFAs as a source of energy Insufficient VFA supply during winter Addition of a static fermenter will accomplish two goals: Provide a source of additional VFA’s Increase sludge solids concentration

39 Fermenter Schematic Influent Sludge from Primary Clarifiers VFA VFA
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Influent Sludge from Primary Clarifiers VFA VFA VFA VFA Rich Supernatant to Anaerobic Zones Effluent Sludge to Digesters (Courtesy of

40 Fermenter Design Design Basis: SRT required: 3-5 days
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Design Basis: SRT required: 3-5 days Sludge loading: 1517 kg/d or 36.8 m3/d (PMF) Fermenter Design Summary: Volume: 157 m3 (10 m diameter, 2 m tall) Sludge solids concentration increased from 4% to 6% Additional VFAs supplied to the BNR process: mg/L

41 Gravity Belt Thickener
Solids Handling DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Gravity Belt Thickener

42 Construction of a new digester incurs large capital investments
Thickening DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Construction of a new digester incurs large capital investments Thickening can reduce the volume of sludge and allow the use of the existing digesters Gravity Belt Thickener Good control capabilities High cake solids concentration Relatively low capital and operating costs

43 Gravity Belt Thickener
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS - Sludge - Separated water

44 Gravity Belt Thickener
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Design Basis: Peak solids loading: 13,784 kg/d Peak hydraulic loading: 675 m3/d Desired cake solids concentration: 7% GBT Design Summary: Length-Width-Height: 5.1 m : 1.7m : 1.5 m Belt width: 1.2 m Solids capture: ~95% Polymer Usage: 2-4 kg/tonne of sludge

45 Gravity Belt Thickener
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS (Courtesy of City of Beloit)

46 Additional Considerations
Phase II Conceptual Design Additional Considerations DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Noise & odour control Septage receiving station Backup generator Phase II Conceptual Design Phase II Liquid Facility Courtesy of Envirocan

47 Phase II Conceptual Design
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Phase II Solids Facility

48 Process Control DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Process Control

49 Highlights of Process Control
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Plant to be operated with minimum supervision required Process Control will rely on automation and plant operators Existing SCADA system is to be upgraded to include control in addition to monitoring (Courtesy of Port Darlington WPCP)

50 MOE Requirements Compliance Sampling required by the MOE
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Raw Sewage Influent BOD5 TSS NH3 and NH4 TP Final Effluent BOD5 TSS NH3 and NH4 TP E. Coli Compliance Sampling required by the MOE (To be done by the operators)

51 Process Control Performance monitoring Sampling
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Raw Sewage Influent Headworks Effluent Primary Clarifier Secondary Clarifier UV Influent Final Effluent 1 2 3 4 5 6 pH Temperature BOD5 TSS TP NH3 and NH4 SVI MLSS NO2- and NO3- E. Coli DO Performance monitoring Sampling (To be done by the operators)

52 Process Control Automatic Monitoring and Control (SCADA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Raw Sewage Influent Headworks Primary Clarifier BNR Reactors Secondary Clarifier UV Influent Final Effluent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flow-Rate Air flow-rate to the Grit Chamber Flow- rate Primary Sludge pumping Flow-rate Temp. MLSS DO Sludge Age Recycle Rate Ortho- Phosphorus WAS rate RAS rate Alum addition (Polishing) UV Transmittance UV Intensity Level UV Dose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Automatic Monitoring and Control (SCADA)

53 Phase I Economic Analysis
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Phase I Economic Analysis

54 Capital Investment Trade form with 16 Market Price Divisions
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Trade form with 16 Market Price Divisions Detailed analysis for major equipment and concrete costs Mark-ups, allowances and contingencies based on industry recommendations (Hussein, 2010) Phase I estimation: $36 M Accuracy within +50/-30 % for this conceptual level of design

55 Allowances and Contingencies General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit
Capital Investment DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Basic Facility Cost Engineering Services Allowances and Contingencies General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit Total Project Cost = $36 M

56 Capital Investment Total Project Cost = $36 M
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Basic Facility Cost Engineering Services Allowances and Contingencies General Contractor’s Overhead & Profit Mechanical Electrical Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance Retrofit/Upgrade Allowance Concrete Major Equipment Other Total Project Cost = $36 M

57 Total Annual O&M Costs = $927K
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Labour Electrical 18% 17% Maintenance Chemical 31% 34% Total Annual O&M Costs = $927K

58 Recommendations and Closing Remarks
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Recommendations and Closing Remarks

59 Estimated Phase I & Phase II Estimated Existing + Phase I
Recommendations DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Implement dechlorination in existing facility Retrofit of existing plant to incorporate BNR Increase hydraulic capacity of Headworks Biogas capture and reuse OPA Feed-in Tariff program (14.7¢/kWh generated) Potential O&M Savings: $382 K /yr D.O = Design Objective C.L = Compliance Limit Existing Estimated Phase I & Phase II Estimated Existing + Phase I D.O C.L BOD5 (mg/L) 15 25 5 10 TSS (mg/L) Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1 0.3 0.65 Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Summer 14 N/A 12 Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) - Winter 24 E. Coli (org./100 mL) 100 200 Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) 0.5 0.2 0.25 0.2

60 Closing Remarks Phase I uses AS process with incorporated BNR and UV
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Phase I uses AS process with incorporated BNR and UV Effluent will meet more stringent compliance levels Economically feasible Total Phase I Expansion Cost: $36 M Annual Phase I Operating Cost: $927 K Environmentally Sustainable

61 Acknowledgements Dr. Manual Alvarez – Cuenca, Faculty Supervisor
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Dr. Manual Alvarez – Cuenca, Faculty Supervisor Professor of Chemical Engineering – Ryerson University Gisselly Anania, Consultant Advisor Associate Project Manager – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group Jeremy Kraemer Associate Engineer – CH2M Hill, Water Business Group Abu Hussein Regional Estimator – CH2M Hill, Canada Region WEAO Student Design Competition Sub - Committee Vendors: Rob Anderson H2Flow Equipment Inc. Edward M. Pikovnik ENV Treatment Systems Inc. Allen Vivian, Geoff Coate Pro Aqua Inc. Frank Ferrie ITT Water & Wastewater Dale Jackson ACG Technology Ltd. Darrin Hopper H2Flow Tanks & Systems Inc. Michel Bruneau John Meunier Inc.

62 Questions

63 Supporting Documentation

64 BNR Bioreactors >The projected flows and effluent criteria defined the Regional Municipality of Durham were taken as the design basis, which take into account the Class EA findings completed in 2005. >Here we have the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and expansions. To point out is that each expansion will add about 13,000 m3/day. A peak flow factor of 3.3 of the average daily flow has been selected for the expansions, as recommended by a TSH optimization study in 2001, resulting in a peak daily flow of 43 to m3/day for the expansions.

65 Biological Nutrient Removal
Anaerobic Zone P Release VFAs Energy PHB P PAO

66 Biological Nutrient Removal
Anoxic and Aerobic Zones O2 or NO3 CO2 + H2O P Energy PHB PAO Cell growth

67 Aerobic Zone Assumptions
20% of the influent TSS are considered inert 40% of the remaining TSS are non-biodegradable 10% of the influent TKN is incorporated into the heterotrophic biomass Heterotrophic organisms do not differentiate between forms of nitrogen in the wastewater Autotrophic organisms do not assimilate an appreciable amount of nitrogen Average sewage temperature of 15°C (minimum: 10°C; maximum 20°C)

68 Heterotrophic organisms Autotrophic organisms
Sizing Aerobic Zone Parameter Symbol 15ºC 10ºC 20ºC Heterotrophic organisms True Yield (kg VSS/kg BOD5) Yhtrue 0.6 does not vary with temperature Observed Yield Yh-obs -- 0.38 0.33 Decay Coefficient (d-1) bh 0.06 0.05 0.07 Autotrophic organisms Yatrue 0.15 0.10 0.09 ba 0.04 Half-velocity constant for N (mg/NH3-N/L) Ksn 1 Half-velocity constant for O (mg DO/L) Ko 0.5 Max. growth rate µmax 0.47 0.29 0.77

69 Sizing Aerobic Zone

70 Coming from Aeration tank
Sizing Zones Anoxic Zone Anaerobic Zone Parameter Symbol Unit Coming from Aeration tank Nitrate in influent TKNo mg/L 53.6 Nitrate in effluent Ne 10 Nitrogen in cell tissue PX,bio 4.35

71 Other Design >The projected flows and effluent criteria defined the Regional Municipality of Durham were taken as the design basis, which take into account the Class EA findings completed in 2005. >Here we have the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and expansions. To point out is that each expansion will add about 13,000 m3/day. A peak flow factor of 3.3 of the average daily flow has been selected for the expansions, as recommended by a TSH optimization study in 2001, resulting in a peak daily flow of 43 to m3/day for the expansions.

72 Primary Clarifier Specifications
Parameter PDF ADF Total Volume 1960 m3 Number of clarifiers 4 Volume per clarifier 490 m3 Dimensions (Length : Width : Depth) 25.5 m : 6.3 m : 3.05 m L:W L:D 8.36 Weir Length 30 m/clarifier Hydraulic Retention Time 1.05 h 3.45 h Overflow Rate 70 m3/m2*d 21.2 m3/m2*d TSS Removal (55%* Removal)1 4208 kg/d kg/d BOD5 Removal (30%* Removal)2 kg/d kg/d 1 (WPCF, 1985) 2 (I-EPA, 1998) - Here are the specifications of the primary clarifiers, removal rates and dimensions

73 Primary Clarifier Profile

74 UV Facility Design Factor Value UV Dose 30,000 mWs / m2
Channel Dimensions (Length : Width : Depth) 10 m : 0.61 m : m Number of Channels (equipped) 2 (1 Duty, 1 Redundant) Number of Banks/Channel 2 # of Modules/Bank 6 # of Lamps/Module 8 Total # of Lamps/channel 96 Power Requirement/Channel Connected Load = 24 kW Average power draw (avg. flow) = 7.2 kW Hydraulic Design 0.881 m of head loss Level controller Automatic Level Controller Guaranteed lamp life 12,000 hours Control of UV dose delivery Yes, automatic dose pacing Cleaning Mechanism Automatic mechanical/chemical cleaning

75 Sludge Stream Evaluation
Stream 5 Properties Mass Flow-rate: kg/d Solids Concentration: 2% Volume Flow-rate: 243 m3 Stream 8 Properties Mass Flow-rate: 1476 kg/d Solids Concentration: 6% Volume Flow-rate: 24.6 m3 Stream 9 Properties Mass Flow-rate: 6322 kg/d Solids Concentration: 6.7% Volume Flow-rate: 95 m3 Thickening Desired Stream 6 Properties Mass Flow-rate: kg/d Solids Concentration: 7% Volume Flow-rate: 70.4 m3

76 Septage receiving station

77 Hydraulic Profile Equations
Manning equation of head loss through open channels Minor head losses through pipes The flow outfall will be directed into Lake Ontario, estimated at an elevation of 74m The base of the existing pipe inlet that leads to the lake has an elevation of m To determine the liquid levels throughout the plant, the liquid level of the existing stream was assumed to be when the outlet pipe is at full capacity, a liquid level of m. Other assumptions include a common weir height of 0.2m and gate widths of 4.3m. Through this analysis, it was determined that the flow through the liquid train does not require pumping, and flow by gravity is ensured. Sample calculations are shown below. A channel width of 1m was selected. Liquid height level through a rectangular channel can be determined using an equation that relates the flowrate, Q, to the length of the channel, L, and an orifice coefficient, Cw. For example, for the effluent channel into the outfall, the liquid height is 0.43m. Using this channel width the velocity was found to be sufficient to prevent settling of the wastewater (ASCE, 1998). Velocity of the flow though the channels can be calculated based on the channel’s cross-sectional area. An example is shown below for the effluent to the outfall. The hydraulic radius is necessary for calculations involving major losses. The hydraulic radius is simply the area of the wetted channel divided by the wetted perimeter of the channel (Janna, 2010). Major losses are the energy loss through the channel. The head loss can also be interpreted as the required slope of the channel. For open channel flow the Manning equation can be used (Janna, 2010), where head loss, hL, is calculated based on the hydraulic radius, the velocity, and the length of the channel. The Manning coefficient, n, for concrete is It was estimated that minor losses through pipes would be a sufficient estimate for the minor losses through the channel. This relates the loss of pressure experienced to the velocity through the use of loss coefficients, K, as described in the equation below.

78 Economics >The projected flows and effluent criteria defined the Regional Municipality of Durham were taken as the design basis, which take into account the Class EA findings completed in 2005. >Here we have the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and expansions. To point out is that each expansion will add about 13,000 m3/day. A peak flow factor of 3.3 of the average daily flow has been selected for the expansions, as recommended by a TSH optimization study in 2001, resulting in a peak daily flow of 43 to m3/day for the expansions.

79 Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances
Equipment estimates are based on vender quotations or catalogue costs Major Equipment Installation Costs: 30% of delivered major equipment cost Major Equipment Costs: 15% allowance for equipment not included (eg: RAS, WAS, and primary sludge pipe, UV grates, etc.) Allowances for the 16 Market Price Divisions: see Table D1.1 (Hussein, 2010) Retrofit Allowance for building renovations and facilities that require significant tie-ins to existing facilities: 5% (Hussein, 2010) Contractors’ Markup (Overhead and Profit): 15% (Hussein, 2010)

80 Inclusions, Assumptions and Allowances
Contingencies (Hussein, 2010): Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance: 20% (Hussein, 2010) Construction Contingency: 5% Construction Escalation and Market Contingency: 3% each of total estimated Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration: 12% of total facility construction costs (Hussein, 2010) Concrete: $ 1100 / m3 (frame, concrete, rebar) (Hussein, 2010) Allowances (Anania, 2010): 7% for common channels 20% for galleries and tunnels

81 Exclusions GST Timeline escalation contingency
Non-competitive market conditions (i.e. shortage of materials, shortage of skilled labour) Additional costs if construction is accelerated

82 Total Project Cost $36 M Total Estimated Project Cost - Excluding GST
Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - CAPITAL COST Sub-Total Basic Facility Costs $20.09 M Retrofit & phasing, demolition & upgrades $1.01 M General Contractor's Overhead & Profit $3.17 M Conceptual Design Contingency Allowance $4.85 M Construction Contingency (Change Orders) $1.21 M Construction Escalation $0.91 M Market Contingency Engineering Services for Design and Construction Administration $3.86 M Total Estimated Project Cost - Excluding GST $36 M Then mark-ups needed to be considered, which includes an allowance for necessary retrofits and upgrades to the existing facility, contractors overhead, necessary contingencies, construction escalation, and an allowance for engineering services. So, in the end, the total estimated project cost excluding GST is estimated at about $36M

83 Annual O&M Total Annual Operating Cost: $927,300
Port Darlington WPCP Phase I Expansion - ANNUAL O&M COST Item Units Unit Cost Daily Quantities Yearly Quantities Yearly Cost 1. Electrical Total - Electrical Costs (see Electricity Cost Table) $153,600 2. Chemical - aluminum sulphate kg $1.2 669.6 244,404 $293,300 - polymer $6 12.2 4,453 $26,700 Total - Chemical Costs $320,000 3. Maintenance Total Major Equipment Cost (see Major Equipment Table) $5,746,387 % of Major Equipment Cost 5% Total - Maintenance Costs $287,300 4. Labour Full Time Operators 2 $40/hr Total yearly hours (8 hrs/day, 5 days/week) 4160 Total - Labour Costs $166,400 Total Annual Operating Cost: $927,300 Then mark-ups needed to be considered, which includes an allowance for necessary retrofits and upgrades to the existing facility, contractors overhead, necessary contingencies, construction escalation, and an allowance for engineering services. So, in the end, the total estimated project cost excluding GST is estimated at about $36M

84 DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES
PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS Process Control >The projected flows and effluent criteria defined the Regional Municipality of Durham were taken as the design basis, which take into account the Class EA findings completed in 2005. >Here we have the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and expansions. To point out is that each expansion will add about 13,000 m3/day. A peak flow factor of 3.3 of the average daily flow has been selected for the expansions, as recommended by a TSH optimization study in 2001, resulting in a peak daily flow of 43 to m3/day for the expansions.

85 Operator’s Sampling Duties
Parameter to measure Raw Influent Head works Primary Clarifier BNR Reactors Secondary Clarifier UV Facility Final Effluent Frequency BOD Daily Monthly - TSS SVI pH Total Phosphorus RAS blanket depth Primary Sludge blanket depth Ammonia Nitrate Dissolved Oxygen Weekly E. Coli

86 Process Control - Solids
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 1 3 2 4 5 Besides the sampling required by the C of A, a number of additional tests are recommended to be done by the operators. These tests will allow to determine the performance of different processes within the plant, as well as identify a potential problems. Frequency of these samples would depend on plant’s overall performance and operator’s availability Fermenter GBT Primary Digester Secondary Digester 1 2 3 4 & 5 % Solids pH VFA VSS TP Performance monitoring Sampling – Solids Handling (To be done by the operators)

87 Process Control - Solids
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 1 3 2 4 5 Besides the sampling required by the C of A, a number of additional tests are recommended to be done by the operators. These tests will allow to determine the performance of different processes within the plant, as well as identify a potential problems. Frequency of these samples would depend on plant’s overall performance and operator’s availability Fermenter GBT Primary Digester Secondary Digester 1 2 3 4 & 5 Sludge Wasting Flow-Rate Level Polymer Dosing Flow-rate Temperature Alum Dosing Automatic Monitoring and Control – Solids Handling (SCADA)

88 Phase II Considerations
>The projected flows and effluent criteria defined the Regional Municipality of Durham were taken as the design basis, which take into account the Class EA findings completed in 2005. >Here we have the hydraulic loading for the existing plant and expansions. To point out is that each expansion will add about 13,000 m3/day. A peak flow factor of 3.3 of the average daily flow has been selected for the expansions, as recommended by a TSH optimization study in 2001, resulting in a peak daily flow of 43 to m3/day for the expansions.

89 Phase II Considerations
New headworks facility Four additional liquid trains (identical to Phase I) Installation of UV equipment in 3rd chamber Fermenter Gravity Belt Thickener Primary High Rate Anaerobic Digester >new headworks facility including a new raw sewage pumping station and a new headworks building incorporating the screening and grit removal processes >layout of the plant allows for additional liquid trains to be constructed, consisting of four primary clarifiers, four BNR bioreactors and four secondary clarifiers identical to those of Phase I >Installation of UV equipment in the 3rd chamber already constructed during Phase I >Since solids handling will be at capacity after Phase I, a new fermenter, GBT and primary anaerobic digester will have to be implemented for Phase II.

90 Implementation and Construction Schedule

91 Equipment Design Total Bioreactor Volume: 7,127 m3 SRT: 12 days
DESIGN BASIS AND CHALLENGES PROCESS SELECTION AND FACILITY DESIGN PROCESS CONTROL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS 4.8% 8% 7.8% 79.4% Total Bioreactor Volume: 7,127 m3 SRT: 12 days HRT: ADF Average MLSS: 3,000 mg/L Required VFA concentration: 15 – 25 mg/L Mechanical Mixers The flow travels from the preanoxic to the anaerobic, then continues through to the anoxic zone. It then travels through the first cell of the aerobic zone, around a 90º bend, before exiting to the secondary clarifiers. There are baffles to separate each of the disntct zones. The flow is directed to alternate between under, over under flow around the baffles. The unaerated zones employ mechanical mixers, while the aerobic zone Fine Bubble Diffusers = Anaerobic = Anoxic = Aerobic


Download ppt "PORT DARLINGTON WPCP EXPANSION PROJECT"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google